The Portland daily press., 1887-06-30
Mr.. Justice Woodbury. agreed substantially

Mr.. Justice Woodbury. agreed substantially
with Mr.. Justice Danelan in the course of
a long and elaborate opinion used this Ian
guage:
1t is the undoubted and reserved power of every
State here, as a political body, to decide, indie
pendent OF any provisions made by Congress.
though subject not to conflict with any OF them
when rightiul, who shall compose its population,
who become its residents, who its citizens, VINO
enjoy the privileges Of IFS laws, and be entitled to
their protection and favor and what kind OF prop
erty and business Il VIII tolerate and protect.
And no government, on lis agents or navigat0rs,
possess any right 70 make another State, against
its consent, a penitentiaIy or hospital, or poor
house farm, for its wretched outcasts. or recep-
tacle for its poisOns to health, and instruments
Of gambling and debauchery 40, Indeed
terrain no doubt whatsoever, that the
States in virtue of their gneral police power pos
SeSs fun jurisdiction 10 arrest and restrain runa
way slaves. and remove them from their borders,
and otherwise to secure themselves against their
depredationS and evil example. as they certainly
may do in cases OF idlers, vagabondS and pau
pers.' There may be some doubt whether tie gen
erdl government, or each state possesses the pro-
hibitory power, as 70 persons or property OF eer-
tain KINDS ron coming into the limits OF the state.
But IL must exist somewhere; and IL seems to me
rather police power belonging to the States,
and TO be exercised IN the mauuer best suited TO
tile tastes and Institutions OF each, than one NY
where granted or proper to The peculiar duties Of
the general government . it is possible
that, under our system OF double, government over
one and the same people, the States cannot pro
hbit the mere arrival of vessels and cargoes which
they may deem dangerous in character 10 the
public peace, or public morals, or general health.
This might. perhaps, touch on foreign coIn-
merce. Nor can they tax them as imports
This might trench on that part OF the constitution
which forbids States to lay duties on imports.
But after articles have come within the territorial
limits OF States, whether on land or water, the
destruction itself OF what contains disease and
death, and the longer continuance OF such articles
within their limits or the terms and conditions Of
their continuance, when conflicting with their le-
ultimate DOliPp with their internal
commerce, or with their right of taxation over all
persons ard property under their protection and
jurisdiction, seems one OF the first principles Of
state sovereignty, and Indispensable to public
safety.
Justice Grier said that all measures of re-
straint or prohibition necessary to effect the
purpose fof correcting the evils resulting
from the use or abuse of ardent spirtsl are
within the scope of the authority OF the po-
lice power of the States
To sum up. Sixty years ago the Supreme
Court of the United States, one justice dis
senting, decided that the right to import ar
ticles carried with it the right of
sale, and that law of the State
that interfered with the sale of the
imported article in the original pack
age by the importer was unconstitutional
but that this right of sale did not extend
beyond the importer. Twenty years later
reviewing this opinion four of the justices
gave it their approval, but all four OF
them declared that the States had the
power TO make. police regulations to prohibit
the sale of foreign articles dangerous to the
public health or public morals, though Chief
Justice fancy and Judge Nelson expressed
the opinion that Intoxicating liquors could
not be included in this category.
Three other justices dissented strenuously
from the doctrine laid down in Brown VS..
Maryland, and their opinions leave the inn
preston on the mind that had they been
called upon to decide the question at issue
in that case they would have decided it diff
ferently. 1t seemed to be the conviction Of
all three of them that police regulation to
prevent the sale of liquors by the importer
or anybody else is within the scope of State
authority. The question then whether the
sale of liquor by the actual importer and in
the original package is exempted from the
operation of our prohibitory law, seems to
be, notwithstanding the decision in 1927, an
open one, though the Maine Supreme Court
in their dictum in the case of State VS..
Robinson appear to have considered it con-
clusively settled by that decision.